Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This 
People are oddly desperate to put a price tag on Taliban income yet rarely pay attn to veracity, rigor or how complex it is to actually calculate. And, no surprise, it's often politicised
If people like Franz and David are calling estimates questionable, listen to themhttps://twitter.com/franzjmarty/status/1309446211649384448 …
Oh, and to Franz's other point, the UN should really make an effort to do better on this account, and make a concerted effort not to cite seemingly random, nebulously sourced figures on this and any number of other Taliban issues...
Certainly for data on the Taliban but people like @a_a_jackson have been changing that
Also: setting aside spurious reporting quality a moment, the article cites annual Taliban income of $1.6 billion. In fact, the UN report says “somewhere from $300 million to $1.6bn.” Goes unmentioned. Begins to creep past “flawed assessment methods” & into misleading territory.
Some will think this is just the “anoraks” arguing about stats & methods. But bad numbers have dominated policy debates & led to such poor policy choices. How about spending hundreds of millions on bombing mud compounds in the name of threat finance https://www.lse.ac.uk/united-states/Assets/Documents/mansfield-april-update.pdf …
UN monitoring report simply regurgitates estimates of member states, incl GIRoA, with the same issues we find elsewhere. They won’t use independent research regardless of methods & veracity. These estimates can be so better & should be or it’s more of the same. God forbid!
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
